I think that it's a good way to get people interested in economics but IMO it's not the most accurate representation of Keynesian theory. Namely, it neglects to mention that for Keynesian theory to work, you have to run surpluses in good times so that you can run deficits in bad times. Also, it portrays Keynesianism to be this liberal spending program when you could be a Keynesian through tax cuts.

Hayek's answers get philosophical in the second debate to the point that I still don't really know what he wants the government to do to get out of a recession (if he wants government to do absolutely nothing, then he should be more clear about it). He also ruined his credibility by questioning whether econometricians were biased with no evidence shown (I get that it's supposed to be a short video, but still). I do get that some of these problems are because it's a short video and there's not enough time to say everything, though

Overall it seems like the two talk past each other. I feel like a Keynes vs. Friedman rap would be much more interesting and probably more indicative of current academic debates on economics, though it would also be a whole lot more complicated.

Let's not all be dense. Huntsman is not talking about adopting objectivism. He is talking about adopting libertarian social attitudes- live and let be. This is something people shouldn't be finding objectionable. Talking about tolerating gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, et cetera. Repealing DOMA. He's talking sense, as usual. There's no need to twist his words.

That's not libertarianism. It's liberalism.

In the case of those types of issues, what is the difference?

Libertarianism is about (generally irrational) hatred of government. It has nothing to do with social liberalism and support for progressive social policies. Libertarian politicians in the US and worldwide are not generally supportive of liberal social positions. Taking Ron Paul as the American libertarian avatar, his opposition to gay rights, immigration reform, abortion and euthanasia along with support for the death penalty are clearly anti-liberal. The only issue on which the libertarian movement and liberalism are aligned is drug policy, and even there the libertarians take a doctrinaire stance while the liberals support drug legalization/decriminalization for practical reasons. Even ignoring Ron Paul in particular, at best libertarian politicians are divided on these issues, and for the most part they just don't care.

Of course, I don't think Huntsman is talking about anything other than gay rights here. Which makes it particularly ridiculous; libertarian and libertarian-aligned politicians are hardly noted for being pro-gay.

Paul isn't a libertarian, he's a paleocon. And to interpret the stances of one man as representative of the entire group is ridiculous. Quotes from Gov. Gary Johnson (L-NM):

"It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman.""A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.""[I have] come to believe that the death penalty as a public policy is flawed.""I don't want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty.""Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage.""My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders."

You can't have libertarianism without social tolerance; otherwise it's just straight conservatism, and thus not libertarianism.

Abortion really shouldn't be the issue that defines social liberalism vs. social conservatism. If life actually does begin at conception, then it shouldn't be socially illiberal to be against abortion. Of course, if life doesn't begin at conception, then social conservatives and social liberals should both be uniformly in favor of legalized abortion. There are reasons why conservatives should be pro-choice or why liberals should be pro-life, depending on your conception of when life begins.

What makes Depardieu's move any morally different from union workers that strike because their wages aren't high enough? Both are nonviolent responses to policies that do have a negative effect on people (whether those losses are offset by gains in societal utility is of course, subject to debate).

@Han: Of course I agree with closing/capping loopholes and deductions, it's a great idea that should be a major piece of any serious tax reform. However, a 35% top rate is already insanely low (it's one of the lowest among developed countries) and bringing it down further at the moment when we're talking about budget austerity, as Romney pledged, is absurd. There's also the fact that Romney's plan has been proven to be unworkable by several independent studies (at least, unworkable without taking a certain number of highly unpopular and economically detrimental measures).

I meant the general principle of Romney's plan, which has been endorsed at least once by the Economist (not Romney's specific plan, but the broad idea of lowering rates and simplifying the tax code; even the Simpson-Bowles commission supported this idea). It's probably true that Romney wouldn't have been willing to go far enough in eliminating loopholes and deductions to make his tax plan work (assuming that we're not taking into account job growth that would hopefully arise from tax reform), but that doesn't meant that the idea is wrong in principle.

Also, we accept the Keynesian argument that government intervention is necessary during a recession to stimulate aggregate demand, why would raising taxes on anybody be a good idea? There's an argument to be made that the harms would be outweighed by the gains and that we have no other choice but to raise taxes on the rich because of our deficit, but that doesn't mean that raising taxes on the rich is positive for the economy in and of itself (and for example, ending the Bush tax cuts on the rich wouldn't only force them to pay "a little more": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/07/would-millionaires-pay-little-more-taxes-under-oba/). The fact that Obama and the Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class implies that they do indeed buy the argument that lower taxes are better. As Charles Krauthammer said, if the Clinton tax rates were so great, why not just go back to such rates for everybody?

Well people that favor the EU and freedom of movement certainly shouldn't be upset or shocked by this.

You are seriously blaming the EU for fiscal exile? Never knew the lack of Schengen agreements has ever prevented a rich asshole from leaving to a tax heaven.

Although you have to admit that virtually any country outside of France is a tax haven in the eyes of the French these days.

That's true... And the saddest thing is that France isn't even close to taxing the uber-rich nearly as much as they should be.

Well if this is the reaction to a 75% marginal tax rate, I shudder to think what the reaction would be if France taxed "the uber-rich nearly as much as they should be."

No, I'm fine with the current French marginal tax rate (of course, it could and ideally should be higher than that... but 75% or 95% doesn't make much of a difference to me). However, it's worth noting that the French system to collect taxes is pathetically inefficient and easy to cheat. The current income tax, which is collected using this archaic system, generates as much revenue as a 8% flat tax (the CSG) which is collected in more modern and rational ways. And even when you don't cheat, it's ridiculously easy to avoid paying your fair share using exemptions, deductions and loopholes of all kinds. Tax rates might be important, but they only tell a very small part of the story.

Would you be okay with Romney style tax reform then (lower rates, less loopholes and deductions)? Something tells me you can't have less loopholes/deductions without lower rates.

To an extent, the GOP may have to just brace themselves and wait. Suddenly turning left on immigration probably isn't going to help that much (not that turning left on immigration isn't the right thing to do). Newly immigrated Hispanic-American voters are eventually going to become integrated in American society (perhaps to the point where we won't call them minorities anymore), as well as economically affluent. Once that happens, the GOP will begin to make inroads. As a parallel, just think about how Eastern European immigrants who supported FDR ended up supporting Nixon and Reagan in the 1960s and 1980s.

To the extent that the GOP can do something about the "lost cause," part of the solution would be to stop running bad candidates. We also need reach out to these groups that are supposedly making these states "a lost cause," showing them how and why conservatism is in their best interests (i realize that's a broad statement though).

As someone who likes the Republican ticket (and might go so far as to campaign for such a ticket), it wouldn't be close.

437-101

By that time Texas might actually go blue (well, red by atlas speak). I don't even think Rubio would agree to be on the ticket (nor would Paul choose Rubio...take a look at some of the videos done by the Southern Avenger/Jack Hunter to get a sense of why).

Alright, I am certifying Jake Matthew's results as the results of the election, though I'm pretty sure that Napoleon and RowanBrandon win the last two slots of the Northeast Assembly because RowanBrandon said he'd accept write ins (though he's going to the Senate, so will we have to have another election?).